Klippoklondike:People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

I don't understand this argument. The RTW stuff has been lobbied for for at least a year or two. It was not a new idea. They put any work on hold when Prop 2 hit the ballot because that would have made RTW unconstitutional. So, when Prop 2 failed they whisked RTW on through.

I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*

Michigan isn't prohibiting unions, it's just allowing workers to decide if they want to belong to them. Of course unions want the power to compel membership, it's so much easier than having to persuade people that voluntarily joining is in their best interest.

jbuist:I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*

Governor Snyder urged the unions not to push forward on Prop 2. When they did it anyway and Prop 2 was defeated, the political backlash moved RTW to the front of the line. The GOP has significant majorities in the state house, state senate, a majority on the State Supreme Court, and the Governorship...in a state that's been blue for Presidential elections since 1992 and has 2 Democratic Senators.. Basically, they'd never have another shot at this where everything aligns in their favor. Additionally, polling puts 51-54% of Michigan citizens in favor of RTW.

jbuist:Klippoklondike: People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

I don't understand this argument. The RTW stuff has been lobbied for for at least a year or two. It was not a new idea. They put any work on hold when Prop 2 hit the ballot because that would have made RTW unconstitutional. So, when Prop 2 failed they whisked RTW on through.

I'm not sure what people wanted. Another year to debate the merits of such a law? *shrug*

Several things:

First, it's a lame duck session trying to ram it through before the session is up, which rankles people.Second, they passed it as a spending bill which means that it can't be brought up as a public referendum, which enrages people.

They're basically telling the people "Fark you, we're doing this and you can't stop us." It's pretty typical GOP tactics where they drop a turd in the punch bowl and the Democrats have to waste time fishing it out.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.

I don't think so. this law bypassed the normal process of democracy and the local GOP has been extremely heavy handed about passing it. the Republicans have already damaged their brand in this fight. passing that law will tell Democrats (and third parties) that the GOP isn't interested in democracy anymore, they're just in it for the money and power.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm of mixed minds on right-to-work. But the way this was done is offensive. Let the people choose.

even if you agree with the theory behind the law you STILL have to admit that the GOP's implementation of it was NOT proper. they rushed it through, locked civilians out of the state capital and shut down any attempts to debate its merits. this thing was pushed through last minute and in a very questionable manner. it's smash mouth politics, and its going to piss voters off.

Snarfangel:If you piss them off now, they'll vote twice as hard in the next election.

But the idea is to cripple them financially. The largest financial supporters of conservative candidates are billionaires, Karl Rove types, and other conservative PACs. The largest financial supporters of liberal candidates are unions. Cripple the unions, and you can drown out the liberal voices. Republicans aren't playing to win the next election, they're playing to win every election for the next 30 years.

Those sort of lists are silly because they imply some sort of correlation. The funny thing is if you look at a similar list of top ten states for occupational fatalities (can be found at bls.gov), it is predominatly those states that do not have Right to Work laws. Additionally, you could draw up a list of states by unemployment (again at bls.gov), and the states with the lowest unemployment are generally those with Right to Work laws and those with the highest unemployment are those mostly those without the Right to Work laws. The fact of the matter is that those sort of issues are much more complex than a simple Right to Work law which only provides choices, not restrictions.

Those sort of lists are silly because they imply some sort of correlation. The funny thing is if you look at a similar list of top ten states for occupational fatalities (can be found at bls.gov), it is predominatly those states that do not have Right to Work laws. Additionally, you could draw up a list of states by unemployment (again at bls.gov), and the states with the lowest unemployment are generally those with Right to Work laws and those with the highest unemployment are those mostly those without the Right to Work laws. The fact of the matter is that those sort of issues are much more complex than a simple Right to Work law which only provides choices, not restrictions.

Why is it a leap to assume that teachers with higher salaries and better benefits, are better teachers. This does not take a leap of faith to understand.

Occupational fatalities would obviously be more closely linked more to types of occupation.

This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.

slayer199:This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.

It's not intended as a panacea for the economy. The 2010 elections allowed the GOP to take the war against unions to the unions' home turf. The GOP is going to do as much damage as possible before they get thrown out. As usual, it will be the Democrats who are left to clean up the mess.

Every day I get more and more annoyed at liberals who sat out the 2010 elections to "send a message". Message received morons.

slayer199:This past weekend, I pulled a number of stats off the bls.gov website. The stats are not conclusive either way...though people will spin the stats in favor of their position. My conclusion is that it won't be the panacea for Michigan's economy that the GOP thinks it will be, nor will it be the end of western civilization that the unions/Democrats think it will be. Time will tell.

I, uh, I did a whole bunch of number crunching using my own math NO YOU CAN'T SEE IT NOBODY CAN SEE IT and it's clear, uh, that we'll all be better if anyone in a union died in a fire.

slayer199:Klippoklondike: No. People are pissed not just at what the law is but the underhanded way in which it is being passed.

Doesn't matter, the GOP has the power in the state and they're going to take advantage of it.

In hindsight, attempting to enshrine collective bargaining in the state constitution at this time was a stupid farking move. It failed miserable, showed weakness, and the Republicans jumped on it. The unions should have waited till they at least either enough Dems in the legislature to protect them from blowback or a Dem governor to veto it.

The big problem with Dem strategists in Michigan is they all think they're still living in the glory days of unions and can do whatever they want and then go get rubber stamped at the polls. In reality~16% of this state is unionized and union discipline isn't as strong as it once was.

When the Dems stay moderate they have no issues winning elections, but when they get lazy we end up with Republican governors and the like.

/Stabenow actually was just far enough to the left she was on course for an ass kicking this election cycle//until the Republicans nominated Hoekstra and Stabenow suddenly became awesome in comparison to that farkhead

From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution's shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions' effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality-an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education. Link

Deny the private sector (unions) the ability to reduce income inequality and you'll force the government to do it.

Dusk-You-n-Me:From 1973 to 2007, private sector union membership in the United States declined from 34 to 8 percent for men and from 16 to 6 percent for women. During this period, inequality in hourly wages increased by over 40 percent. We report a decomposition, relating rising inequality to the union wage distribution's shrinking weight. We argue that unions helped institutionalize norms of equity, reducing the dispersion of nonunion wages in highly unionized regions and industries. Accounting for unions' effect on union and nonunion wages suggests that the decline of organized labor explains a fifth to a third of the growth in inequality-an effect comparable to the growing stratification of wages by education. Link

Deny the private sector (unions) the ability to reduce income inequality and you'll force the government to do it.